This chapter describes various management
strategies that result in more efficient use of parking resources, including
sharing, regulating and pricing of parking facilities, more accurate
requirements, use of off-site parking facilities, improved user information,
and incentives to use alternative modes. For more information see Parking Management: Strategies,
Evaluation and Planning.

Parking Management includes a variety of strategies that encourage more efficient use
of existing parking facilities, improve the quality of service provided to
parking facility users and improve parking facility design. Parking Management
can help address a wide range of transportation problems (see Parking Evaluation and Parking
Solutions), and help achieve a variety of transportation, land use
development, economic, environmental objectives.

Sharing parking spaces typically allows
20-40% more users compared with assigning each space to an individual motorist,
since some potential users are usually away at any particular time. For
example, 100 employees can typically share 60-80 parking spaces, since at any
particular time some employees are on leave, away on business, or using an
alternative commute mode. Even greater reductions are possible with mixed land
uses, since different activities have different peak demand times. For example,
a restaurant can share parking with an office complex, since restaurant parking
demand peaks in the evening while office parking demand peaks during the middle
of the day. Public parking facilities, including on-street parking spaces, can
usually be shared efficiently among many destinations.

In lieu fees allow developers to pay into a
fund for off-site municipal parking facilities instead of providing their own
on-site parking (Shoup 1999a). This results in more efficient Shared Parking facilities, and allows parking facilities
to be located where they most optimal for urban design.

The appropriate number of motorists that
can be assigned to a particular number of parking spaces depends on several
factors. In general, the more diverse the users and the larger the facility,
the more parking spaces can be shared.

Parking facilities can be managed and
regulated to encourage more efficient use of parking resources and more
efficient travel. This often involves making the most convenient parking spaces
available to certain higher-value uses. Below are typical strategies.

·Regulate based on the type of vehicles or users.
For example, during peak periods dedicate the most convenient spaces for
service vehicles, customers, Rideshare vehicles, and vehicles used by People With
Disabilities.

·Encouraged employees to use less convenient
parking spaces (such as parking lots at the urban fringe) during peak periods,
in order to leave the most convenient spaces for customers. Develop a system to
monitor use of parking facilities and send reminders to employees who violate
these guidelines.

·Charge higher Parking Prices and shorter payment periods for more
convenient spaces. For example, in prime central locations charge 25¢ for each
15-minute period with a two-hour maximum, while at the fringe charge $2.00 for
4-hours, with no smaller time periods available.

·Implement more flexible
Pricing Methods which allow motorists to pay for only
the amount of time they park, which makes shorter parking periods relatively
attractive.

·Limit use of on-street
parking to area residents, or provide discounts to residents for priced
parking.

·Limit on-street parking of large vehicles (e.g.,
vehicles over 22 feet long or trailers) to ease traffic flow and discourage use
of public parking for storage of commercial vehicles.

·Prohibit on-street parking on certain routes at
certain times (such as on arterials during rush hour), to increase traffic
lanes.

Current parking requirements are often
inflexible and generous, applied with little consideration to specific
geographic and demographic factors that affect parking demand at a particular
location (Cervero and Arrington 2009; CTR 1999; Engel-Yan and Passmore 2010;
Litman 1999; Millard-Ball 2002; Rowe, et al. 2013; Shoup 1999). Parking
requirements are based on parking generation studies that are mostly performed
at new, suburban sites with unpriced parking, resulting in standards that tend
to be excessive in urban areas with more multi-modal transportation, where
parking is priced, and at sites with TDM programs (Shoup 2002). Current minimum
parking standards are often inflexible, applied with little consideration to
specific geographic, demographic, economic and management conditions.

In many situations, parking standards for
new facilities, and the supply of parking at existing facilities, can be
reduced without creating significant parking problems, particularly if
implemented as part of an integrated parking management program. More
accurate and flexible parking requirements means that parking standards
reflect the parking demand and costs at a particular location, taking into
account geographic, demographic, economic and management factors. This allows
parking requirements to be reduced in exchange for implementation of specific
parking and mobility management strategies, such as:

Most jurisdictions require wide residential
streets in order to provide on-street parking. This practice is not justified
for safety or by consumer demands, since many households would not choose to
pay for parking if it were unbundled, and so represents a hidden subsidy of
automobile ownership and use (Guo, et al. 2012). Reducing minimum residential
street widths in municipal zoning codes and development policies allows
developers to build new urbanist communities with narrower streets and
less parking, and rely more on efficient parking management.

Parking Maximums

Some communities limit on the maximum
amount of parking capacity allowed at particular sites or within a particular
area, particularly in growing Commercial Centers
(Millard-Ball 2002; Manfille and Shoup 2004). This can be in addition to, or
instead of, minimum parking requirements that are commonly imposed. Below are
some examples (K.T. Analytics 1995):

·Portland. In 1975, the City of Portland set an overall cap of
approximately 40,000 parking spaces downtown, including existing and new parking
facilities. The cap was increased to about 44,000 spaces by the 1980’s and
increased again in the 1990’s. The City is generally satisfied with its parking
policies and believes it has helped increase transit use from 20-25% in the
early 1970’s to 48% in the mid-1990’s.

·San Francisco. The city of San Francisco’s “Transit First” policy
allows parking to consume only up to seven percent of a building’s gross floor
and new buildings must have an approved parking plan prior to receiving an
occupancy permit. In some cases, only short term parking is approved; in
another, a mix of long, short and carpool parking was approved. This policy has
helped prevent increased peak vehicle traffic despite considerable office
growth.

·Boston. In 1977, the City of Boston adopted a freeze on
commercial parking open to the public, but not parking reserved for individuals
or a company use within office buildings. While the number of commercial spaces
have not increased, there was a 26% increase in exempt spaces between 1984 and
1987 alone and motor vehicle traffic increased dramatically along major
corridors to the city.

·Seattle. The City of Seattle allows a maximum of one parking
space per 1,000 sq. ft. of downtown office space.

Remote Parking involves encouraging motorists (particularly commuters and
residents) to use off-site or fringe parking facilities (typically located a
few blocks from a Commercial Center), so the most
convenient spaces are available for priority users (such as service vehicles
and customers). Motorists usually prefer the closest parking location, but
given a choice some will park further away to save on parking fees. In some
situations (airports, large entertainment centers, and large commercial
centers), Shuttle Services may allow longer distances
between parking facilities and destinations. Strategies to accomplish this
include:

Many parking problems result, in part, from
inadequate user information and Marketing. Motorists
need convenient and accurate information on parking availability and price,
including what parking facilities exist near a destination, whether spaces are
available in a particular facility at a particular time, the price they will
need to pay, and whether there are less expensive alternatives nearby. Produce
a Transportation Access Guide that provides concise information
on how to access a particular destination by various modes, including parking
availability and price. Parking information can include maps, signs, brochures
and various types of Electronic Communication systems
to provide information to motorists on parking facility location, availability
(whether a parking lot is full), service options, and price (FHWA 2007). This
can help improve user convenience and security, increase the functional supply
of parking, address many objections to specific parking management strategies.
For example, motorists may be less resistant to parking regulation, pricing and
reduced supply in a particular location if they can easily obtain information
on alternatives parking and travel options that can meet their needs.

Smart Growth (also
called New Urbanism) is a general term for policies
that integrate transportation and land use decisions, for example by
encouraging more development within existing urban areas where additional
growth is desirable, and discouraging low-density, automobile dependent
development at the urban fringe. Smart Growth can help create more accessible,
less automobile-dependent land use patterns. Smart Growth is an alternative to
urban sprawl. Smart Growth tends to reduce per capita vehicle ownership and
encourage use of alternative travel modes, and so it can reduce parking
requirements and support other parking management strategies.

Location Efficient
Development means development that is designed and managed to take
advantage of more Accessible, multi-modal locations
(good walking, cycling and transit). Parking requirements can be reduced in
such areas due to reduced automobile ownership and use. Location Efficient
Mortgage (LEM) means that lenders take into account transportation cost savings
by households that choose more accessible locations when evaluating borrowing
ability (Hoeveler 1997). This encourages infill, multi-modal development.

The usable parking supply serving a
destination can often be increased by improving Walkability
(the quality of the walking environment). Walkability takes into account
sidewalk, path and roadway conditions; land use patterns; social acceptance;
security and comfort for walking. Improved walking conditions expands the range
of Shared Parking, and encourages park once
trips, which means that visitors park their vehicles and walk to several
destinations, rather than driving to, and parking at, each destination. There
are many specific ways to Improved Walkability:

·Improved sidewalks,
crosswalks and paths.

·Creating pedestrian
shortcuts, such as mid-block paths and connections between dead-end streets.

·Improve facility
designs to accommodate special needs, including people using wheelchairs,
walkers, strollers and hand carts.

·Provide covered
walkways, loading and waiting areas with shade from hot sun and protection from
rain.

Transportation
Management Associations (TMAs) are private, non-profit, member-controlled
organizations that provide transportation services in a particular area, such
as a commercial district, mall, medical center or industrial park.
Transportation Management Associations can provide a variety of services that
encourage more efficient use of transportation and parking resources. TMAs
allow small employers to provide Commute Trip Reduction
services comparable to those offered by large companies. They are usually more
cost effective than programs managed by individual businesses.

Transportation management associations can
provide parking brokerage services, allowing businesses to share, trade, lease,
rent and sell parking facilities. For example, a TMA can match businesses that
have extra parking supply at a particular time with nearby businesses that need
parking at that time. This helps businesses deal with changing parking demands,
and allows businesses that implement successful trip reduction programs to save
money if they end up with unused parking spaces.

·Sizing a portion of spaces for motorcycles and
compact cars. Small size stalls (275 square feet) require about 20% less space
than average stalls (325 square feet). Up to 25% of spaces can typically be
sized for compact vehicles, resulting in a 5% increase in total parking
capacity compared with all spaces being average size. Motorcycle parking can
sometimes be located in an area that is too small for automobile parking
spaces.

·Car stackers and mechanical garages use various
types of lifts and elevators to increase the number of vehicles that can fit in
a parking structure. They can nearly double the number of vehicles that can be
parked in a given area, although they are only suitable for cars (most trucks,
vans and SUVs are too high), and require an attendant to operate.

Implement TDM programs to reduce vehicle
trips, and reduce parking requirements at sites that implement such programs.
For example, parking requirements can usually be reduced 10-30% at sites with Commute Trip Reduction programs. Parking
Cash Out is particularly effective at reducing parking demand. Carfree and Location Efficient
Development may provide parking spaces for Carsharing
vehicles, each of which can substitute for several private automobiles, and
therefore reduce total parking requirements.

Parking Pricingmeans that motorists pay directly for using parking facilities.
Parking Pricing may be implemented as a parking management strategy (to reduce
parking problems in a particular location), as a mobility management strategy
(to reduce vehicle traffic in an area), to recover parking facility costs, to
generate revenue for other purposes (such as a local transportation program or
downtown improvement district), or for a combination of these objectives. Performance-based
parking pricing means that prices are set so that about 15% of parking
spaces are unoccupied during peak periods, with higher rates for peak locations
and times (Shoup, 2006 and 2008). Use Improved Pricing
Methods to improve user convenience, pricing flexibility and cost
efficiency.

Cost-based parking pricing (i.e., prices
set to recover the full cost of parking facilities) typically
reduces parking demand 10-30% compared with unpriced parking. Pricing of
commuter parking, and time variable-rates (higher rates during peak periods) is
particularly effective at reducing peak use. Pricing of commuter parking, and
time variable-rates (higher rates during peak periods) is particularly
effective at reducing peak use. Charging motorists directly for parking is more
economically efficient and fair (horizontal equity) than unpriced parking that
results in cross-subsidies from consumers who drive less to those who drive
more than average.

When parking is priced, it is often leased
by the month, with significant discounts compared with short-term pricing. This
encourages motorists who pay the fee to drive in order to get their money’s
worth. It is more efficient to rent parking in smaller time blocks (hourly or
daily rates), or to prorate monthly leases by the portion of days parking
facilities are used. For example, if full-time parking costs $50 per month,
commuters who only drive 3 days a week should only pay $30. This gives
motorists more options and a financial incentive to use alternative modes when
possible. Similarly, some parking facilities offer “Early Bird Specials,” which
favors long-term parking – such discounts are appropriate for less convenient
parking facilities, but not for parking at prime locations, which should be
reserved for people parking for short-term errands.

Shoup (2005) provides the following
guidelines for efficient parking pricing:

Price parking for full cost recovery: at
a minimum, all costs of building and operating parking facilities should
recovered from users. Prices may be higher to reflect the opportunity cost
of land and to provide profits.

Price the most convenient parking, such
as on-street spaces, so occupancy averages 85-90%. Use variable fees, with
higher rates during peak periods and lower rated during off-peak periods.

Dedicate some or all of the revenue from
on-street parking to benefit local businesses and residents.

Unbundle parking from building rents, so
occupants only pay for the number of parking spaces they want.

Allow private developers and building
managers to decide how much parking to provide at each destination, rather
than relying on rigid regulations.

Commuter Financial
Incentives means that commuters are offered financial incentives to use
alternative travel modes and reduce their use of parking facilities,
particularly the most convenient parking spaces during peak periods. Parking
Cash Out means that commuters who are offered a free or subsidized parking
space have the option of choosing the cash equivalent, and Transit Benefits
means that employers help fund their employees’ transit and rideshare fares.
For example, employees might be able to choose between a free parking space, a
monthly transit pass, a vanpool subsidy, or $50 cash per month. These payments
may be prorated, so for example, employees who drive 30% of the time receive a
70% cash-out payment. This creates a more neutral benefit with respect to
travel mode, letting commuters decide which commute subsidy they prefer. These
incentives tend to reduce automobile commuting by 15-25%, and are fairer, since
they give non-drivers benefits comparable to those offered motorists.

Commuter Financial Incentive benefits
represent the savings that result from reduced parking costs. Businesses that
own adequate parking may perceive little short-term savings from reduced
parking demand. For example, if Commuter Financial Incentives convince 20 employees
to shift from driving to alternative modes the employer may simply have 20
unused parking spaces. However, over time most firms have opportunities to
benefit financially from reduced parking demand: by reducing the amount of
parking they lease with their building, to provide additional parking to
accommodate growth, to lease or sell to other businesses, or to use the land
for a new building, equipment storage, or greenspace. To make it easier for
businesses to save from reduced employee parking demand, commercial leases can
unbundle parking (parking spaces are leased separately rather than
automatically included with building space), and list parking as a separate
line item (parking rents are listed separately from building rents). Parking
brokerage services, provided by a Transportation Management Association or
other local business organization, can help employers capture financial savings
from reduced parking use.

Unpriced parking is often “bundled” with
building costs, which means that a certain number of spaces are automatically
included with building purchases or leases. Unbundling Parking means
that parking is sold or rented separately. For example, rather than renting an
apartment for $1,000 per month with two parking spaces at no extra cost, each
apartment can be rented for $850 per month, plus $75 per month for each parking
space. Occupants only pay for the parking spaces the actually need. This is
more efficient and fair, since occupants save money when they reduce parking demand,
are not forced to pay for parking they do not need, and can adjust their
parking supply as their needs change.

For this to function efficiently, building
owners must be able to lease or sell excess parking spaces (such as parking
brokerage services described below), and local officials should regulate nearby
on-street parking to avoid spillover problems that could result if residents
use onstreet parking to avoid paying rents for parking spaces.

If governments must tax something, it may
be appropriate to tax parking as a way to control demand and correct existing
distortions that underprice parking. Taxes can be applied to parking spaces,
parking subsidies and parking rental transactions. For example, a municipality
can charge a special property tax of $5 annually per parking space owned by
businesses, $10 annually per space provided free to employees, or a special
sales tax of 20% on commercial parking transactions. For example, the
city of San Francisco charges a 25% tax on commercial parking transactions (www.ci.sf.ca.us/tax/parking.htm).
Municipalities could also charge a tax on curbcuts comparable to potential
revenue foregone had the same curb area been devoted to priced on-street
parking. This would encourage property owners to minimize the number and width
of curb cuts, through access management and consolidation of driveways and
parking facilities, which helps improve traffic flow and create more pedestrian
friendly streetscapes.

2. It would encourage consolidation of curb cuts between property owners.

Parking tax reform can also be used to
correct existing policies that undertax parking. For example, land devoted to
parking is sometimes assessed at a lower rate than if the same land were used
for buildings, on the assumption that rents are paid on buildings, while
parking is an ancillary use. Taxing land devoted to parking at the same rate as
building land gives businesses an incentive to reduce parking supply.

Parking passes sold or allocated to
employees, officials or visitors should have clear limitations regarding where,
when and by whom they may be used, and these limitations should be enforced.
For example, it is often appropriate to limit parking pass use to a specific
vehicle, individual, and area.

Employees, officials and volunteers are
often allocated parking passes for use on official business. Such passes are
sometimes abused, such as being used for personal trips, or loaned to other
motorists. Such passes should be carefully controlled, with regular audits of
their need and use.

Bicycle Parking,
storage and changing facilities are important ways to provide convenience and
security for cyclists at destinations. Bicycle parking improvements can reduce
automobile parking and travel demand if inadequate bike storage is major
deterrents to cycling. Effective bicycle parking requires a properly designed
rack in an appropriate location for the type of use. There are many types of
bicycle racks and lockers available.

Excessive parking is often provided to meet
infrequent peak demand that occurs during Special Events
or other limited time periods. Parking requirements can be reduced by
developing an overflow parking plan. This can include:

Generous and free parking is often justified
in order to avoid “spillover” parking problems in nearby areas. Spillover
problems can be addressed directly with management, pricing and enforcement
strategies. On-street parking can be limited to residents, which can be
enforced by issuing permits to residents, or simply in response to complaints.
Residential neighborhoods can be designated “Parking Benefit Districts,” where
on-street parking is priced (residents can be exempt), with revenues used for
neighborhood enhancement or to reduce property taxes (Shoup, 1994 and 1995).

Another approach is to provide some sort of
compensation to residents who experience parking problems. For example, a high
school can send complementary sport event tickets to residents of nearby
streets who bear spillover parking problems. Shoup (1995) proposes using
revenues from on-street parking in ways that directly benefit neighborhood
residents.

Use management, enforcement and pricing to
address spillover problems.

Varies

Parking Facility Design and Operation

Improve parking facility design and operations
to help solve problems and support parking management.

Varies

This table
summarizes the parking management strategies described in this chapter. It
indicates the typical reduction in the amount of parking required at a
destination, and whether a strategy helps reduce vehicle traffic, and so also
provides congestion, accident and pollution reduction benefits.

Parking Management is usually implemented
by local governments or individual businesses in response to specific parking
and traffic problems. Some Parking Management programs are coordinated by
regional governments. Concerns over an immediate parking problem will instigate
development of a comprehensive parking planning process. Transportation
engineers and planners, either within public agencies or hired as consultants,
are usually responsible for performing parking studies, evaluating parking
solutions and developing parking management plans.

Parking Management can help shift
automobile travel to alternative modes, and improves access by creating more
clustered, multi-modal land use patterns. As the number of parking spaces per
employee in a commercial center declines, use of alternative modes tends to
increase (Morrall and Bolger 1996; Mildner, Strathman and Bianco 1997). See Transport Elasticities and Land Use
Impacts on Transport for additional information on how parking policies can
affect travel decisions.

Efficiency and Savings

Parking Management that reduces parking
requirements can provide cost savings and increase consumer Affordability.
Parking is one of the largest transportation costs (Litman, 2002; www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf). A
comprehensive Parking Management program that includes several strategies (Shared Parking, more accurate parking requirements,
pricing, Cash Out, etc.) can often reduce parking
requirements by 30-50% compared with generous minimum parking requirements,
unpriced parking, and each space assigned to an individual motorist. With
appropriate Parking Management motorists still have adequate parking, although
they may need to walk somewhat farther, and pay directly rather than indirectly
for parking.

The magnitude of savings that result from
Parking Management depends on specific conditions, including the cost per
parking space and how much parking can be reduced. Below are some examples of
potential savings, assuming that a comprehensive Parking Management program can
reduce parking requirements by a third, and annualized parking facility costs
average $1,200 in urban conditions and $600 in suburban conditions:

·Cashing Out free
parking is equivalent to a 3% wage increase for an employee earning $40,000 per
year at an urban location, and a 1.5% wage increase for suburban employees.

·If building rent
represents 20% of a business’s total costs, and parking represents 25% of rent
costs, reducing parking costs by 40% results in a 2% reduction in total costs.
If the business has a 10% profit margin, this increases profits by 20%.

·If two parking spaces
are currently included with housing, decoupling parking (renting parking spaces
separately) provides $100 monthly savings for an urban household that only owns
one vehicle, and $200 monthly savings if it owns no vehicles. This represents a
12-25% reduction from a $800 per month rent or mortgage payment. Suburban
households save half this amount, a 10-20% savings from a $500 per month rent
or mortgage payment.

·If standard practices
result in an average of two parking spaces per vehicle in urban areas and four
spaces per vehicle in suburban areas, a 33% reduction in total parking
requirements results in total annualized savings of $800 per vehicle.

·Parking cost savings
depend on the ability of facility managers to sell, lease or rent excess
parking capacity. For example, if a business has 100 parking spaces, and its Commute Trip Reduction program reduces demand to 60 parking
spaces, it will have 40 parking spaces that are no longer needed. The business
will need to sell, lease or rent these spaces, or convert the land to other
uses, in order to benefit from this reduced demand. Parking brokerage services,
perhaps through a Transportation Management Association,
a chamber of commerce or other organization can help businesses capture parking
cost savings.

Reduced Automobile Use

Parking Management is one of the most
effective ways to reduce motor vehicle traffic and achieve TDM objectives. Parking
Management (Parking Pricing, Cashing Out parking, unbundling parking from
housing) can reduce total automobile trips by 10-30%, and more if implemented
as part of a comprehensive TDM program (see discussion of travel impacts
above). This helps reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs,
road risk, pollution emissions and urban sprawl, and can increase Transportation Diversity.

Improved Design

Parking Management allows greater
flexibility in facility location and site design. It gives building managers
and developers more options for dealing with parking problems. It gives
communities more control over land use, allowing higher density, more walkable
urban areas. It can facilitate the preservation of historic buildings and
districts, and allows designers to position buildings to meet access, aesthetic
and environmental objectives in ways that are impossible if parking
requirements are inflexible. Such design flexibility is particularly important
for infill development and areas with high land costs, allowing redevelopment
of central business districts and urban communities. Parking Management is an
important component of efforts to create more efficient and attractive urban
conditions (New Urbanism).

Business Impacts

Parking restrictions and pricing can reduce
business activity in an area and shift travel to more suburban locations
(Shiftana 1999), although these impacts depend on specific conditions,
including how prices are structured, and the quality of travel and location
alternatives. When parking revenues are used to improve local streetscape
conditions or to fund transportation alternatives they can increase business
activity in a downtown (Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, 2003).

Increased Management and Transaction Costs

Parking Management often increases
administrative responsibilities for public officials and facility managers, and
additional responsibilities and inconvenience on motorists.

Spillover Impacts

Parking charges and restrictions in one
area may cause motorists to park in other areas where they create congestion
problems. This may increase management and enforcement costs, and create
conflicts between neighbors.

The Equity impacts
of Parking Management depend on the type of strategies used, where and how they
are applied, and the quality of transport alternatives. Strategies that reduce
subsidies and charge motorists directly for the parking costs they impose tend
to increase fairness (horizontal equity).

Some Parking Management strategies, such as
parking Cash Out and Location
Efficient Development can provide significant benefits to lower income and
transportation-disadvantaged people. Most Parking Management strategies benefit
people who are transportation disadvantaged by helping to create less
automobile-dependent land use patterns, and reducing the parking costs they
bear through taxes, rents and employment benefits.

Parking Pricing can
be regressive, but overall equity impacts depend on how revenues are used and
the quality of travel choices. If revenues are used to benefit lower-income
households and there are good travel alternatives to driving, pricing and taxes
can be progressive overall (Pricing Evaluation).

The table below summarizes the major equity
impacts of various Parking Management strategies. Most tend to increase equity
overall.

Parking Management programs are primarily
implemented by local government policies and agencies, and by individual
businesses. Implementation often involves changing current planning,
enforcement and design practices, sometimes with the support of professional
organizations. Transportation Management Associations
can provide Parking Management and parking facility brokerage services (for
example, maintaining a system to match businesses that have excess parking
capacity with those that need additional spaces and arranging for parking
facilities to be shared when appropriate).

Parking Management often represents a
significant change from current practices, and so requires overcoming various
institutional and political barriers. Current parking policies are based on the
assumption that maximum parking capacity is desirable. Current parking
standards tend to be applied inflexibly, for administrative convenience, with
little consideration of demographic, geographic and management practices that
may affect parking requirements. Parking Management requires public officials,
planners and business leaders to become familiar with the many Parking
Management strategies and their potential benefits. Parking Management requires
changing current development, zoning and design practices. It requires an
institutional framework (such as TMAs and TDM Programs) and addressing concerns over spillover
impacts.

Best practices for Parking Management are
described below, and in various documents listed in References and Resources.
For more information see Evaluating Parking Policy.

·Parking policies should
emphasize efficient use of resources. User information services, Shared Parking, Parking Pricing
and overflow parking plans allow more efficient use of existing capacity and
avoid the need for excessive requirements.

·The most convenient
parking spaces should be managed and priced to favor priority users, such as
people with disabilities, Rideshare vehicles, delivery
vehicles, business customers and clients.

·Parking prices should
be higher during peak-periods. There should be little or no discount for
long-term leases.

·Parking should be
considered a high-quality service. Signs, maps and brochures should be used to
provide accurate information to users. Facilities should be attractive and
safe. Users needs and potential problems should be anticipated.

·Parking services need
not be one-size-fits-all. A parking facility may provide a variety of services
tailored to different users, including valet services for premium users,
convenient short-term parking for shoppers and delivery vehicles, longer-term
parking for commuters and residents, and special arrangements when appropriate
for commercial users.

·Parking facilities
should be integrated with overall facility and district design and style.

·Parking Management
policies and programs should be coordinated through a district or region, so
prices and management practices are consistent in comparable areas.

·Stakeholders should be
consulted and involved in Planning parking policies and
programs.

·New technologies should
be used to improve user information, convenience and safety, and for control
revenue.

·Parking management
planning should anticipate potential spillover problems, and respond with
appropriate regulations and enforcement programs. Enforcement should be
adequate to maintain a high level of compliance, predicable and courteous.

A Texan with a
big cowboy hat, boots and plenty of jewelry parks his sparkling new limousine
in front of a bank in New York city, walks in, and says, “I’d like to borrow
$500 immediately.”

The loan officer
hands him an application form. For an address he writes, “Ritz Hotel.” For
collateral he writes, “Cadillac, estimated value $100,000.” The loan is
approved and the satisfied customer hands the limousine keys to the bank in
exchange for a $500 check.

Two weeks later
the Texan returns and returns the check, plus a $5 bill for interest. Curious
about this strange transaction, the loan officer inquires, “Sir, you are
obviously rich. You have a valuable car. You stay at the fanciest hotel. You
wear thousands of dollars worth of jewelry. Why did you borrow such a small
sum and not even bother to cash the check?”

The man replies.
“I didn’t need the money. But where else can I park my car in central New York for two weeks for just five dollars.”

Commercial District Parking Management (Gibbs 2012)

In his book Principles of Urban Retail, Gibbs
(2013) describes various ways to create more attractive urban retail centers,
including ways to manage parking for shopper convenience. The book describes
various types of urban shopping demands and the types of retail centers that
serve them. It emphasizes the importance of convenience and secure parking that
accommodates various types of customers. The book points out that accepted
parking ratios for regional centers have declined significantly in recent
decades, from 10 cars per 1,000 square feet of building area during the 1960s
to 4.0 to 4.5 per today, and that this can be further reduced in urban centers,
particularly if parking supply is efficiently managed. Gibbs recommends pricing
the most convenient parking spaces to insure that parking spaces are always available
to shoppers in a hurry, and that the parking meters be convenient to use.

The Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District, which manages transportation in the Portland, Oregon area, has implemented various parking management strategies around transit
stations to minimize costs and support Transit Oriented
Development. These include:

·Arranging Shared Parking with Park & Ride and other types of
land uses, including apartments, churches, movie theaters and government
buildings near transit stations.

·Using lower minimum
parking requirements around transit stations.

·Allowing Park &
Ride capacity near transit stations to be reduced if the land is used for
Transit Oriented Development, thus allowing car trips to access transit to be
replaced by walk/bike trips.

The City of Vancouver is developing a more flexible approach to parking requirements for mult-family
dwellings to support efficient transportation, smart growth and affordable
housing planning objectives. City staff have proposed a Sustainable
Transportation Credit Program that allows developers more flexibility based on
their specific location and circumstances. The program is loosely based on the
LEED TM Green building rating system. Developers receive credits for reducing
the number of parking stalls, providing parking spaces for carshare vehicles,
and providing annual transit passes to building occupants.

Reducing Parking Requirements (Marshall and Garrick, 2006)

Researchers Marshall and Garrick compared
parking supply and demand in three new urbanist and three conventional small
city centers. In general, the three mixed-use study sites provided much less
parking per square foot than the conventional control sites. The study sites
thrived by making much more efficient use of land for parking. The study sites
also furnished a significant amount of on-street parking and relied more on
shared municipal parking lots and parking garages. However, the towns with
mixed-use centers still demanded almost as much parking for new construction as
did the towns in which the conventional sites are located. On average, the
amount of parking mandated by base regulation in these six towns is about two
and a half times more than the peak use.

Centralized Parking (USEPA 2006)

To encourage downtown development the Chattanooga Area
Regional Transit Authority developed peripheral parking garages with free
shuttle service. By constructing parking facilities at either end of the
business district, the system intercepts commuters and visitors before they
drive into the city center, reducing traffic problems. Free shuttle buses are
financed through the garages’ parking revenues. They depart from each garage
every five minutes all day, every day, and pass within walking distance of most
downtown destinations. The electric-powered shuttles transport approximately
one million riders each year, making shuttle-served property attractive to
businesses. Since 1992, when the shuttle service began, over $400 million has
been invested in the downtown, including a major freshwater aquarium, over 100
retail shops and 60 restaurants.

The following policy reforms were
implemented by the city of San Francisco in 2006:

·Eliminate minimum parking requirements for
downtown housing. This allows developers to decide how much parking to provide
at each location, based on market demand.

·Establish a maximum of 1 space for every 4
units, with additional parking allowed if more affordable units are provided.

·Establish a maximum parking ratio for dwelling
units of 3 spaces for every 4 units. One space per unit is allowed for units
with two or more bedrooms. Developers and individual tenants are free to secure
additional parking spaces off-site.

·Provide flexibility in configuring off-street
parking to give developers the flexibility they need to create space-efficient
parking through the use of tandem, valet, and stacked mechanical parking.

·Require off-street parking to be below ground,
or on the ground floor with active uses on all public frontages to prevent
ugly, multi-story concrete parking garages and blank building fronts in the
downtown area; some exceptions are allowed with a conditional use authorization
by the planning commission, which is appealable to the Board of Supervisors.

·Establish limits on width of garage openings to
off-street parking and loading to reduce vehicle exit speeds and conflicts with
pedestrians.

·Prohibit residential portes-cochere (covered
areas) for loading or parking, and prohibit garage entrances on important
pedestrian, bicycle and transit streets. Driveways and narrowed sidewalks for
portes-cochere and garage entrances create conflicts between autos and other
modes.

·Require secure bicycle parking citywide for
residential buildings of four or more units. 1 space is required for every 2
units in projects up to 50 units, and 1 space per 4 units in projects larger
than 50 units.

·Require that parking spaces be sold/leased
separately from dwellings in projects of more than 10 units, and provides
exceptions for affordable housing projects. By “unbundling” the price charged
for housing from the price charged for parking, people have the choice to
purchase only as much parking as they need, people without cars aren’t forced
to pay for parking they don’t need, and everyone pays less for their housing.

·Require car share spaces citywide at the ratio
of 1 dedicated space for car sharing vehicles for each 200 dwelling units.
Studies show that car-sharing services in the Bay Area are proven to reduce the
number of vehicles people own and the number of car trips taken, while providing
a car when needed.

Residents in 300 apartment
units at Market Common in Arlington Virginia have no assigned parking – spaces
are “unbundled” from rent. Residents pay $25 per month for one space and $75 to
$100 for a second (in contrast, owners of 87 townhouses at Market Common get
two parking stalls as part of purchase, no choice). They use a parking
structure that is shared with retail and restaurant patrons. Retail patrons and
tenants share about 1,100 spaces in a parking structure, though there also is
some on street parking for shoppers (36 spaces are referenced in one web page
summary of the project).

Residents pay building
management (not the parking operator) for swipe cards used at structure gates.
Shoppers buy short term permits to access the garage ($1-4/hr depending on
length of stay, with merchant validation allowed). Because retail is at ground
floor and resident units at upper floors (10 story building), residents generally
park on the upper levels where spaces are generally available. Elevators in the
parking structure leading to residential areas are opened only by tenant pass
key to maintain security.

Ventura,
California created a Downtown Parking Management Program based on the principle
that parking facilities should set prices at municipal on- and off-street
parking facilities to achieve a 15% vacancy rate. Parking meter revenues may be
used to defray city parking and transportation service expenses, including funding
alternative transportation programs, projects and enhancements that reduce the
demand for, or increase supply of parking resources in the parking district.

Redwood City Parking Management Plan (Redwood City 2007)

Redwood City
(2007), a San Francisco suburb, sponsored a parking planning workshop which
lead to the following policies, which they call performance-based pricing:

·Installed new, electronic parking meters.

·Eliminated meter limits. Motorists may stay in
one space as long as they pay for it.

·Structured parking prices to achieve about 85%
occupancy (called the Goldilocks Principle: not too high and not too
low). More popular spaces have higher prices and less popular spaces are
cheaper, with price adjustments as needed.

These case studies suggest that parking
restrictions will not have negative economic impacts if implemented in
cities with a strong and vibrant economic structure.

Campus Parking Management (Isler, Hoel, Fontaine 2005)

A survey of university campuses indicate that many are
converting parking lots to buildings, fewer are adding parking capacity, and
many are implementing various parking and transportation management strategies
in order to devote more campus land to academic facilities rather than parking
lots. Typical parking management strategies include permits, meters, cash-out
program, prohibitive policy for freshmen, and eligibility based on residential
location. Annual permit fees varied by location of campus and location of a
parking space within the campus. Various strategies are used to deal with
spillover parking problems.

The Lloyd District is a TOD in East of downtown Portland, Oregon, across Willamette River. As of
2008 it had 275 acres, 600+ businesses, 23,000 employees and 1,000 residential
units. It has
achieved the following:

Reduced the
number of parking spaces required in the area from 12,000 (conventional
requirements) to 3,120 (actual requirements), reducing estimated parking
facility costs from $360 million to just $94 million. The average built ratio of parking is 1.8 stalls
per 1,000 SF, compared with 3.5+ for typical commercial development.

Public transit service improvements. 3 new bus
lines since 1997, rerouting of existing service to the commercial core,
and a Fareless Square (area with free transit service).

Over $1.5 million annual private investment in
transit program.

Revenue sharing of meters and transit pass sales.

Employee transit passes from 1,250 (1997) to
6,000+ (2008).

Transit Commute Mode Splits from 21% (1997) to
41% (2008).

Bicycle Mode Splits from 1% (1997) to 5% (2008).

Pedestrian commute trips up 46% over three years.

Commercial office vacancy rate 12% (2001) to 4%
(2008)

Over 1.75 million SF of new public/private
development since 1995, no net increase in total parking supply (includes
Convention Center expansion).

Parking Facility Design Guidelines
(Toronto, 2007)

The city of Toronto developed parking facility design guidelines to deal with common urban design and
environmental challenges found within and around surface parking lots.
'Greening' the surface parking lot involves:

We're taking another look at urban
supermarket planning, specifically the issue of how to get quality food markets
built in underserved neighborhoods (so-called food deserts) -- where people
often walk or take transit to the store. They write about how cities like New
York and Washington, DC, can encourage supermarket construction by relaxing
onerous zoning requirements for parking spaces.

The New York Times mentioned that one of
the strategies New York City is using to attract more supermarkets into food
deserts is to change the city’s zoning laws that would “free smaller
supermarkets from having to supply parking spaces.” Reducing or eliminating
parking minimums for new development is good urbanism. But if it can help
provide affordable, accessible, and nutritious food to low-income residents of
the District -- which is already a District goal -- the planning commission has
one more very good reason to wean us off of cars. The
District is taking steps to achieve this. Anita Hairston, the Chief of Staff of
the Office of Planning, assures me by e-mail that:

Any commercial building (this would
include supermarkets) located in the central employment area of the city
and is connected to a Metrorail station can have their parking
requirements reduced or eliminated.

Any commercial buildings that are less
than 800 feet from a Metrorail station can have their parking requirements
reduced by one-quarter.

Any planned unit development project
(regardless of location) can work with staff in our office to propose
potential reduction or elimination of parking requirements.

The 2004 San
Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan identified the need for better parking
management at the neighborhood level. It called for improved on-street parking
management through a variety of strategies to support policy goals and improve
on-street parking conditions. In response the Transportation Authority
undertook the On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study to assess
on-street parking conditions and investigate innovative approaches for more
efficiently managing San Francisco's curbside parking. The study:

Effective parking management requires a
neighborhood-level approach. On-street
parking management should be planned and coordinated at the neighborhood level,
with attention to the tradeoffs associated with any strategy and the
interactions between component parts of the parking supply (i.e., individual
block faces and off-street supplies). Neighborhood-level parking management
requires flexible approaches that can be tailored to an area’s conditions,
needs, and priorities, which must evolve over time to reflect changing land use
and travel patterns.

Existing management strategies are ill-suited for
confronting key parking challenges. On-street parking regulations have developed
incrementally over time, such that many neighborhoods are subject to an
uncoordinated management regime that is misaligned with parking conditions and
management needs. Existing strategies cannot address parking availability when there
is an imbalance between supply and demand.

The most promising management approach for addressing
imbalances between supply and demand is pricebased regulation, which also has
significant secondary benefits. Variable pricing of on-street spaces according to parking demand is a
strategy to ensure sufficient availability, improve utilization, and value
on-street space appropriately. Addressing availability—within the confines of
finite supply in an urban environment—is the central purpose and benefit of parking
pricing. Secondary benefits include a reduction in “cruising” behavior and the opportunity
to reinvest new parking revenues in transportation improvements.

Underpriced parking represents a significant source of
untapped revenue that could be dedicated to transit-first uses; attempts to
close this pricing gap must be planned and executed carefully, in a manner that
the public will understand and support. Given that on-street parking in many areas is currently
minimally regulated, future revenue gains have the potential to be substantial.
It is doubtful that the public will support widespread parking charge increases
without a clear link to tangible transportation improvements in the city’s
neighborhoods. The “user fee” principle is also supported by providing a
high-quality parking experience through improved payment options, real-time
information, and flexible time limits. Currently, parking revenues are a
crucial source of locally-generated and locally-controlled funding, which is
prioritized to support Muni operations. Reinvestment of a portion of future new
revenues will encourage neighborhood-level support for parking pricing, thus
increasing the overall pool of funds from which transit stands to benefit.

Current parking policies contradict other planning
objectives and warrant significant reform. Reforms to residential parking management are
warranted to better value on-street space, create a more multimodal program,
and provide more equitably distributed costs and benefits. Neighborhoods should
have the ability to utilize pricing strategies to manage parking demand while
returning benefits to the area in which revenues are collected.

The report made
the following recommendations:

Re-balance the allocation of on-street spaces. The goal of re-balancing is to better
accommodate varying demands within the confines of scarce supply. Examples of
rebalancing include periodic consideration of the demand for commercial loading
zones and evaluation of the appropriateness of various time limitations. This
assessment should be done in cooperation with neighborhood residents and
merchants, and other strategies and tools should be considered along with
conventional regulatory strategies.

Regulate unregulated or under-regulated spaces. Where warranted, currently metered areas
could be expanded, or unregulated spaces could be otherwise regulated. For
example, studies in the Glen Park and Balboa Park neighborhoods revealed a
substantial number of unregulated spaces that contributed to parking shortages
and low turnover; these issues have since been remedied or are in the process
of being addressed. A technical evaluation is required to identify the best
regulatory design (e.g., meter vs. time limit vs. color curb). Typically,
meters have been confined to the downtown area and neighborhood commercial
corridors (and some adjoining blocks). Extending metering hours into the
evening (until 10:00 p.m., for example) is appropriate in those areas with
evening parking generators, such as restaurants or nightlife, where turnover is
desirable, provided that adequate enforcement can be provided. Extension of
metering into evening hours can provide a significant benefit to local
commercial activity, by prioritizing metered spaces during high demand periods
for shorter-term uses (rather than overnight storage).

Reform residential parking permit management. The existing RPP program provides
benefits to a small group—eligible permit holders that store their car(s)
on-street during weekday middays.

Establish a policy on the use of new incremental
parking revenue. SFMTA has
not articulated a clear policy on the use of any revenue gains associated with
implementation of demand-responsive pricing. It is important to affirm the
policy of applying the revenues to parking improvements and transit-first uses.
SFMTA should clarify this policy and allow for public review and input into
this decision.

Share some portion of net new revenues with the areas
in which the monies are collected. By investing in the neighborhoods affected by parking
pricing, tangible benefits will accrue to the areas that are priced and local
impacts are mitigated. The public will be skeptical of any program that simply
provides incremental revenue to an opaque budget that funds programs across the
entire city. Specifically, it is recommended that if demand-responsive pricing
results in at least 50% growth in parking revenue in a neighborhood, at least
25% of the net new revenue should be returned directly to the area in which it
was collected. The affected community should have an opportunity to provide
input into the program of projects funded by the parking revenue. This will
help generate support for pricing programs, as well as increase the overall
pool of funds from which Muni stands to benefit.

Pursue data-driven pricing policy, in support of
articulated performance objectives. Ongoing system monitoring is a crucial component of demand-responsive
parking pricing. This monitoring and analysis facilitates ongoing management
and operation of the system guided by street-level outcomes.

Adjust parking rates systematically. In order to be effective, demand-responsive
pricing requires periodic adjustments to parking rates. These adjustments must
be performed frequently enough to seek the desired availability target but not
so frequently as to obscure the behavior response. Overly frequent rate changes
are also likely to engender public consternation and confusion. Monthly
adjustments are appropriate for the first several months of implementation in a
given area to allow for program managers to find the necessary price structure
to meet performance objectives. Following the initial period, less frequent
adjustments (such as quarterly) are warranted.

Coordinate demand-responsive pricing implementations
in metered areas with the regulations in place on unmetered blocks, including
warranted expansions of metered areas. The implementation of demandresponsive pricing is a
unique opportunity to better manage parking on a neighborhood or area level.
Current policies create an artificial distinction between blocks designated as
commercial and residential. As demand-responsive pricing is implemented in
neighborhoods, an assessment of parking conditions in metered and unmetered
blocks is necessary. This assessment may reveal a need to expand the metered
areas and/or metered time periods as new payment technologies and pricing
strategies are implemented.

Pricing is the
most efficacious means of managing on-street parking when occupancy routinely
exceeds practical capacity. A Parking Benefit District (PBD) program
could be made available to neighborhoods facing parking challenges,
regardless of whether the neighborhood is currently covered by an RPP. The PBD
program would incorporate the following components:

• Allow
neighborhoods to opt-in.
Neighborhoods could elect (through an adopted administrative process) to
create a PBD. If the neighborhood is currently covered by an RPP, the PBD
would replace the RPP (or applicable portion thereof).

• Employ
price-based regulation and associated elements. Variable pricing is necessary to effectively manage
on-street parking in high-demand neighborhoods. New technology would be
deployed to allow for variable pricing, user information, and enhanced
enforcement. The hours during which parking is priced would be evaluated and
modified as necessary. Conventional strategies, such as provision of loading
zones, would be reevaluated and adjusted appropriately.

• Expand metering
to areas with peak parking demands in excess of 85%. All blocks with practical capacity
issues warrant price-based management. Expansion of metering into areas
traditionally designated as “residential” could potentially be paired with an
exemption for preferential permit holders (priced at higher than current
rates, as discussed above) at all or some times of day.

• Provide
parking privileges to preferential permit holders at an appropriate price
point. Residents of the
neighborhood would be permitted to purchase monthly permits for on-street
parking on residential streets in the neighborhood. Permits should be priced
at a high enough level to appropriately value on-street space and reduce
demand for on-street parking (by encouraging offstreet parking, reduced
vehicle ownership, etc.).

• Invest a
portion of net new revenues within the neighborhood and involve the community
in prioritizing expenditures. This is the central element of PBDs. By
pairing the PBD concept with price-based regulation there is even greater
opportunity for neighborhoods to reap the benefits of pricing—through
improved parking reductions and a reduction in traffic volumes, as well as
through funding available to invest in local transportation projects.

• Recognize
the limits of fully addressing peak demand in residential areas. In many neighborhoods, demand for
overnight on-street parking is especially high. Overnight parking demand is
likely to be managed to some extent by higher preferential permit fees, but
even a price-based PBD program must recognize the limits of using price
during very late hours when enforcement is more of a challenge. It is
important to note that on-street occupancies in excess of 85 percent may be
more tolerable during the late-night periods, when traffic volumes are light,
and businesses and other activities are less dependent on prioritizing
short-term parking and ensuring sufficient availability.

These strategies
represent a significant change for any neighborhood. As such, neighborhoods
should be involved in choosing the amount and type of price-based regulation
and supporting strategies that are desired in a given area. Because more
aggressive strategies will provide more revenue, higher levels of benefit
should returned to those neighborhoods that are most willing to proactively
manage on-street parking through price-based regulation and restructured
residential permit parking.

Redeveloping Transit-Station Area Parking Lots (CNT, 2006)

The study, Paved
Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable
Development?” (www.cnt.org/repository/PavedOver-Final.pdf), evaluates the potential economic and social benefits if surface
parking lots around rail transit stations were developed into mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented developments. The analysis concludes that
such development could help to meet the region’s growing demand for affordable,
workforce, senior, and market rate housing near transit, and provide a variety
of benefits including increased tax revenues and reduced per capita vehicle
travel. The parking lots in nine case studies are estimated to be able to
generate 1,188 new residential units and at least 167,000 square feet of new
commercial space, providing additional tax revenues, plus significant
reductions in trip generation and transportation costs compared with more
conventional development.

The report, Suburbanizing
the City: How New York City Parking Requirements Lead to More Driving (Weinberger,
Seaman and Johnson, 2008) recommends the following reforms for more sustainable
parking management in New York City:

Inventory
existing and planned off-street parking. This will provide a baseline to
assess the impact of additional parking.

Measure how much
driving is created by new off-street parking.

Determine
parking demand based on the assumption that off-street parking has a cost.

Measure the
effect of increases in parking growth on neighborhood and citywide traffic
congestion.

2. Consider
measures to significantly reduce required parking.

Unbundle the
price of parking from the cost of new residences.

Eliminate
minimum parking requirements.

Reclassify
minimum parking requirements as maximums.

Peg the maximum
parking requirement to the proximity to transit.

Establish impact
fees for new parking spaces.

Prohibit curb
cuts on key pedestrian and transit streets.

Incentivize
car-sharing spaces in new development.

An interim
strategy is to simply convert existing minimums to maximums.

3. Revise
environmental laws to fully account for parking impacts.

Revise CEQRA and
the special permitting process so that the cumulative impact of new
parking on neighborhoods is considered.

4. Stop directly
subsidizing new parking and freeze special permits

Place a
moratorium on issuing new special parking permits in Manhattan’s Clean Air
Act Zone (the Manhattan Core) until an inventory of existing and planned
parking is completed, and a study of the cumulative environmental impact
of new parking is conducted.

Freeze new city
subsidies for building parking until a complete accounting of the extent
and environmental impact of those subsidies is completed.

Employees at the city
of Seoul, South Korea TOPIS (Transport OPerations and Information Service)
traffic control center monitor major arterials using a closed circuit
television network. If a vehicle stops or parks illegally, they record a
time-stampted image of the vehicle and its license plate. After five minutes,
if the vehicle has not moved, a second set of images are recorded, the license
number automatically read using optical character recognition (OCR), and a
parking ticket is sent to the motorist. After another ten minutes a tow truck
is dispatched to remove the vehicle. This system has greatly reduced traffic
delay and accident risk caused by illegally parked vehicles at relatively low
cost and with few challenges (since motorists are sent photographic images of
their illegally-parked vehicles).

·Enforcement:
Automated scanning enforcement as employed in Chicago, Illinois; parts of
Virginia and Santa Barbara, California appears transformative, though in its
early stages. Other technology, especially wireless, handheld devices with
cameras have made traditional enforcement more efficient; as has software which
automatically issues and tracks parking summonses.

·Pricing Policy:
Variable or peak hour metering in which the price is set based on a curbside occupancy
target of under 85% is a logical and consistent way of managing a congested
curb. San Francisco’s SFpark is the largest application of this approach, which
is also employed in Redwood City, California, and in a flexible form by New
York City’s Parksmart. Another effective practice is to both restrict curb
access to commercial vehicles and meter them. New York City does this and adds
an escalating meter fee of $2, $3, $4/hour to encourage short stays, high
turnover and faster deliveries.

·Payment Medium and Meters: Pay-by-phone is growing rapidly in popularity. Industry experts
believe that remote payment will eventually replace meters. In the meantime,
the state of the art meters are solar powered, multi-space meters which are in
wide use across the U.S.

·Building support for metering via Parking
Benefit Districts and revenue return. In 20-30 special
parking districts, in cities as varied as Boulder, Colorado, Los Angeles and
San Diego, meter revenues support streetscape improvements to attract more
retail business.

The 2010 City of Montreal budget, one of the new
measures it includes is a special tax on downtown parking spaces. Parking lots
in residential areas are taxed at a lower rate than in the central business
district (CBD), and surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than structured
parking. The charges range from $4.95 per square metre for neighborhood
structured parking up to $19.80 per square metre for CBD surface parking, or
$75 to $300 annually for a three by five meter space. The city expects it to collect
around $20 million dollars per year which is earmarked for improving public transit.

A Workplace
Parking Levy (WPL) is a charge on employers that provide free or relatively
cheap workplace parking. It is
being introduced in the United Kingdom as a way to generate revenues and
discourage automobile commuting.
Starting April 2012 the City
of Nottingham plans to
implement a WPL on employers that provide 11 or more liable parking places.
This is being implemented as an alternative to a road user charge. All WPL
revenue will be invested into improving public transport. The pricing itself is
expected to have only a small congestion reduction impact, since only a small
portion of the fee is expected to be passed onto commuters, but the additional
transit service funding is predicted to increase City Centre public transport travel
by over 20% and reduce area traffic growth from 15% to only 8%, which should
provide significant congestion reduction benefits.

GreenTRIP is a Traffic Reduction + Innovative
Parking certification program for new residential and mixed use developments.
It rewards projects that reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. GreenTRIP
expands the definition of green building to include robust transportation
standards for how people get to and from green buildings. Each certified
project receives a Project Evaluation Report which describes the project
location, details and inventories how the project meets GreenTRIP standards. This
typically includes features such as an Accessible and
multi-modal location (near shops and other services, good neighborhood
walkability, near public transit), unbundled parking (parking spaces rented
separately from building space), Carshare services,
discounted Public Transit passes, and Affordable housing.

The GreenTRIP
program provides the following support:

·Tailored Traffic
Reduction Strategies –
Experts work work with developers, designers and operators to identify the most
appropriate transportation and parking management strategies in a particular
situation.

The City of San
Francisco is converting on-street parking and unused bits of streetspace into
“parklets,” small plazas and seating areas, by painting or treating the
asphalt, placing protective barriers along the periphery, and installing
moveable tables and chairs.

The front page
of the Seattle Times has a story about a driver convicted of drunk
driving 12 times, now going on 13. It's a tragic and horrifying story. It
should also be an opportunity for broadening our analysis of the problem.

Serial drunk
driving tends be treated as either a failure of the judicial system or as a
problem of addiction, both of which are partially right. We might also take a
closer look at the design of our cities, because they help create this kind
of thing. If we're going to sell alcohol widely -- a notoriously powerful
drug that impairs motor skill and judgment, and that is lethal in large
quantities -- then perhaps it's not a great idea for us to require by law
that alcohol purveyors provide parking. But we do.

Seattle legally
mandates parking at bars. So does Portland. So does virtually every community
in North America.

Let that sink
in. We don't let bar owners decide whether to provide parking for patrons or
how much -- we force them to do it and we spell out the quantities. And in
most every community in the Northwest, it's provided gratis for patrons. It's
probably the single best example of land use code that is clearly not in the
public interest, and yet it is nearly ubiquitous.

Luckily, reform
is easy. All you need is a black magic marker in the hands of your city
council. Here's how the proceedings might go:

Council
president: "Please turn to the section of the land use code on
"parking minimums at drinking establishments."

[sound of paper
rustling]

Council
president: "Okay, strike that section out. Next order of business?"

Or if we wanted
to get really serious about discouraging drunk driving, we might add
something back into the code: a prohibition against providing parking at
bars.

King County’s Right Size Parking Project
is developing practical tools for more accurately calculating parking
demand, taking into account geographic and economic factors. The study found that
parking demand per unit declines with increased transit proximity, local
population and employment density, and parking price (the amount that residents
must pay extra, if any, for a parking space), and increases with rents, unit
size and number of bedrooms. The resulting model can be used to determine the
parking supply needed in a particular development.

King County’s Right
Size Parking Project (www.rightsizeparking.org) has developed practical tools for more accurately calculating
parking demand, taking into account geographic and economic factors. The study
found that parking demand per unit declines with increased transit proximity,
local population and employment density, and parking price (the amount that
residents must pay extra, if any, for a parking space), and increases with
rents, unit size and number of bedrooms. The resulting model can be used to
determine the parking supply needed in a particular development.

Underground Parking
Profitably Converted To Storage

The Broadway
Store-All(www.weblocal.ca/broadway-store-all-vancouver-bc.html) in Vancouver, British Columbia demonstrates
that excess parking spaces have other profitable uses. This building was
originally constructed with an extra 28 underground parking spaces to serve a
nearby restaurant, but the restaurant soon found that these were not needed. In
response, the building operator obtained municipal approval to convert parking
spaces into commercial storage lockers. They constructed 28 wooden lockers,
each with a sprinkler head, and installing heaters and fans for climate control.
The lockers rent for about $250 per month, more than twice the rate charged for
parking spaces in that area. They are mostly used by nearby businesses to store
archive files. Renters have access to the facility Tuesday through Saturday.
The facility is fully occupied although virtually nothing is spent on advertising.

Parking Management in Rapidly Developing Cities

The Parking Guidebook for Chinese Cities (Weinberger,
et al. 2013) identifies international strategies for efficiently managing
parking resources in urban areas that are experiencing increased motorization
and perceived parking shortages, in ways that support strategic, long-term
goals. A special section focusing on Guangzhou serves as a case study of one
particular Chinese city coming to grips with how to approach growing
motorization and the seemingly unyielding demand for parking in the best
possible way. It recommends these eight strategies:

The Value Pricing
Pilot (VPP) Parking Pricing Regional Analysis Project is part of Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 2014-2015 Parking Initiative. The Project
uses case studies, academic research, policy analysis and data analysis to
address the relationship between parking pricing, policies, parking supply, and
parking demand in cities around the Bay Area. As part of this project, eleven
policy questions are addressed through a range of best practices, case studies,
technical analysis, and expert panel review.

Key Findings:

Most of the
study locations have significant amounts of unused parking, even during
the peak use time. While there is excess parking demand and usage on
particular streets during the peak in some locations, there are
significant amounts of unused parking spaces in lots and structures within
a few blocks in almost all the locations at almost all times.

Many locations
do not have pricing policies that effectively balance parking demand
across their area. There is a lack of coordination of prices between
on-street and off-street parking. Prices for on-street parking are
typically lower, or free, while lots and structures tend to have higher
prices. This commonly results in drivers double parking and searching for
on-street parking spaces, clogging up local business districts and
resulting in excess vehicle miles of travel, while structures go
underutilized.

Many parking
requirements are not closely aligned with demand of the relevant
population in the local context. Households that are younger or lower
income and who have good walk/bike and transit access have lower
automobile ownership rates. High parking requirements make housing less
affordable. There is some movement toward reformed parking requirements
based more on local populations, local land uses, transit access, and
prices; regional support is valued.

When parking
structures are included in transit projects, there is often a lack of
analysis of relative cost and effectiveness of alternative modes of access
and pricing on the need for or appropriate size of a structure. While
parking structures can be a component of the transit system, their
relative cost effectiveness and usefulness depends on local land use and
transportation conditions. In some cases high density housing would
provide higher transit ridership and more revenue to the transit agency.

Employee
programs that charge for parking are the most effective in reducing
driving to work. However, many employers are reluctant to charge employees
for parking. Parking cash-out is an attempt to put charging for parking
into a more favorable perspective, but is not being implemented in the Bay
Area. Programs that provide subsidies for alternative modes are more
expensive and less effective than charging for parking, but appear to be
more acceptable; combinations of charging for parking and subsidies for
other modes may be most effective and acceptable.

Regional parking
policies are a logical policy approach as part of the Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS), as per SB 375. Regional policies can be
effective by providing expertise, supporting local analyses and
implementation, conditioning funds on local adoption of appropriate
parking policies, new innovative programs and increased scrutiny on the
use of regional funds.

The study used
these results to develop recommended policy reforms and programs to support
more efficient parking management.

The High Price of Parking: Housing Costs Inflated by
Minimum Requirements for Parking Spaces

New York Times, 12 Nov. 2006

Spawned by suburban sprawl in the 1950s, local
requirements for the minimum of one or more parking spaces per unit have
abetted car dependency and - letting builders fold the $30,000-$40,000 per slot
into unit prices - pushed housing costs especially high in big cities, some of
which are now eliminating or revising parking space minimums to boost transit
and lower housing costs, with University of California-Los Angeles Professor
Donald Shoup saying, ''In the future, we will look back at minimum parking
requirements as a colossal mistake.''

Author of ''The High Cost of Free Parking'' (American Planning Association,
2005), Professor Shoup tells New York Times writer Linda Baker that with
its expensive housing and cheap parking, the nation ''got it the wrong way
around,'' but the change is under way. Condominiums without parking are already
common in Manhattan and a few other East Coast city cores, the writer reports,
but downtown Los Angeles still mandates 2.25 parking spaces for any unit, and
Houston requires 1.33 spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a
three-bedroom, with a committee reconsidering these minimums along the
light-rail line.

Portland, the writer continues, eliminated central city parking minimums six
years ago; Seattle reduced the parking minimums for multifamily housing in
three major commercial corridors last year and may eliminate them in six core
districts and near light-rail stations next month; and San Francisco, which
gained more downtown housing in the last few years than in the previous 20,
replaced downtown minimums with a maximum of 0.75 parking space per unit.

''The city's modus operandi is 'transit first,''' stresses city planner Joshua
Switzky, pointing out that now downtown builders must ''unbundle'' the price of
parking from the price of a condo and adding, ''Buyers aren't obligated to buy
a parking space, and developers don't have the incentive to build spaces they
can't sell.''

In downtown Seattle's neighborhood of Belltown, where the average condo has 1.5
parking spaces, the 251-condo Moda project, now under way, includes 83 units
without parking, 125 with access to permit parking, and only 43 with assigned
spaces, each priced at about $30,000 more than the others, and all 251 sold
within a week.

The same happened with 24 condos without parking in the 261-unit Civic project
under construction near bus and light-rail stops six blocks from downtown Portland. The Gerding/Edlen Development Company ''decided to test the water and see if
there was a market for units without parking spaces,'' says project manager Tom
Cody. ''We're always looking for ways to promote smart growth.''

European Parking Management (Kodransky and Hermann 2011)

European cities
are reaping the rewards of innovative parking policies, including revitalized
town centers; big reductions in car use; drops in air pollution and rising quality
of urban life, according to Europe's Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to
Regulation, published by the Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy. The report examines European parking over the last half century,
through the prism of ten European cities: Amsterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona,
Copenhagen, London, Munich, Paris, Stockholm, Strasbourg and Zurich. It found:

·European cities are
ahead of the rest of the world in charging rational prices for on-street
parking. In Paris, the on-street parking supply has been reduced by more than
9% since 2003, and of the remaining stock, 95% is paid parking. The result,
along with other transport infrastructure improvements, has been a 13% decrease
in driving.

·Parking reforms are
becoming more popular than congestion charging. While London, Stockholm, and a
few other European cities have managed to implement congestion charging, more
are turning to parking. Parking caps have been set in Zurich and Hamburg's
business districts to freeze the existing supply, where access to public
transport is easiest.

·Revenue gathered from
parking tariffs is being invested to support other mobility needs. In
Barcelona, 100% of revenue goes to operate Bicing—the city's public bike
system. Several boroughs in London use parking revenue to subsidize transit
passes for seniors and the disabled, who ride public transit for free.

·Parking is increasingly
linked to public transport. Amsterdam, Paris, Zurich and Strasbourg limit how
much parking is allowed in new developments based on how far it is to walk to a
bus, tram or metro stop. Zurich has made significant investments in new tram
and bus lines while making parking more expensive and less convenient. As a
result, between 2000 and 2005, the share of public transit use went up by 7%,
while the share of cars in traffic declined by 6%.

GreenTRIP (www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP)
is a certification program for new residential and mixed use developments that
implement transportation and parking management strategies, similar to LEED
building certification.

Daniel B. Hess (2017), Repealing
Minimum Parking Requirements in Buffalo: New Directions for Land Use and
Development,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and
Urban Sustainability, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1310743.

Angus Hulme-Moir (2010), Making
Way for the Car: Minimum Parking Requirements and Porirua City Centre,
Thesis, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria
University of Wellington (http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1458).

International Parking Institute(www.parking.org)
provides information and other resources for Parking Management professionals.

ITDP (2015),
Parking Guidebook for Beijing, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/parking-guidebook-for-beijing.This report studies Beijing’s existing
parking policies and systems and studies several parking locations,
residential, commercial, office and mixed use areas, both on-street and
off-street, documenting existing parking practices in Beijing. An
analysis of problems identifies the main parking issues and Chinese and
international best practices described. Recommendations are given for
on-street parking, including parking zones, price, policies, technology,
enforcement, design, operation models, costing & financing.
For off-street parking recommendations are presented for parking
maximums, caps and parking sharing. Furthermore recommendations for
communication on parking reform are offered.

Owen Jung (2009), Who Is Really
Paying For Your Parking Space? Estimating The Marginal Implicit Value Of
Off-Street Parking Spaces For Condominiums In Central Edmonton, Canada,
Department Of Economics, University Of Alberta; at www.vtpi.org/jung_parking.pdf.

Karel Martens (2005), Effects of
Restrictive Parking Policy on the Development of City Centers,
Environmental Simulation Laboratory, Tel Aviv University, for Israeli Ministry
of Transport; at http://bit.ly/1T4O1ey.

·Permeable Pavement and Bicycle Parking (38 pages) includes five documents concerning the use of permeable
parking lot pavement materials and five documents concerning bicycle parking
requirements and design.

VTPI (2006),
Parking Cost, Pricing and Revenue Calculator (www.vtpi.org/parking.xls), by Todd Litman; and the Parking Costs, Pricing
and Revenue Calculator - Developing Country Edition (www.vtpi.org/Parking_DC.xls),
by Yash Saxena. These spreadsheets can be used to calculate parking facility
costs, cost recovery pricing, and revenue generation. The spreadsheets include
default values which users can adjust inputs to represent various conditions
and assumptions.

This Encyclopedia is
produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve
understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project.
Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.